Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Kanpur vs Laxmi Oil & Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd on 14 May, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 14.5.2012 Honble Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Condonation Application No. 4 to 8 of 2012 and Central Excise Appeal No.34 to 38 of 2012 Arising out of the order in appeal No.552-555/CE/APPL/KNP/2010 dated 28.10.2010 and No.200/CE/APPL/KNP/2010 dated 7.4.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise , Kanpur. C.C.E., Kanpur ... Appellant versus 1. Laxmi Oil & Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri Saurabh Gupta 3. Ganpati Edibles Ltd. .. Respondents
4. Shri M.K. Malpani
5. Ganpati Edibles Ltd.
Present Shri Bharat Bhushan, A.R. for the Appellant Present Shri A.K. Dixit, Advocate for the appellant M/s Ganpati Edibles Pvt. Ltd. and none for others Order No.____________ Per Mr. Rakesh Kumar:
These are applications for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) holding that soap stock/fatty acids, waxes and gums arising from refining are fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 89/95-CE.
2. The reason for delay as mentioned in the applications is that earlier, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had been accepted by the Committee of Commissioners on account of Tribunals juddgment in the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad vs. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. , reported in 2010 (349) ELT 70, but subsequently, in view of the judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Jalandhar vs. M/s A.G. Flats Ltd vide final order No.648-661/11-Ex., dated 28.7.2011, the Committee of Commissioners decided to review its decision and for this reason there has been delay of 11 months in filing of the appeals.
3. Since in these cases, the Committee of Commissioners had once decided not to file appeal in terms of the Section 35B(2), in view of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Priyanka Refineries vs. C.C.E., Hyderabad (supra) the Committee of Commissioners cannot review its decision, subsequently on the basis of some subsequent decision. We are therefore unable to accept the applications for Condonation of delay. Accordingly, condonation applications as well as the appeals are dismissed.
(Justice Ajit Bharihoke) President (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member scd/